A Plea for the Employment of Scientific Names and Methods in Lepidopterology, with Special Reference to Butterfly Conservation (Insecta: Lepidoptera)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Quadrifina Jahr/Year: 2015 Band/Volume: 12 Autor(en)/Author(s): Kudrna Otakar Artikel/Article: A plea for the empfloyment of scientific names and methods in lepidopterology, with special reference to butterfly conservation (Insecta: Lepidoptera) 27-36 Q UADRIFINA Band 12 27-36 28. Dezember 2015 A plea for the employment of scientific names and methods in lepidopterology, with special reference to butterfly conservation (Insecta: Lepidoptera) O. Kudrna Abstract The present paper critically reviews and rejects the growing use of vernacular names in lepi- dopterological literature and strongly recommends the use of scientific names for which there is no alternative. The necessity for changes of scientific names is outlined. Torturing of live butterflies by examination of their genitalia is categorically rejected on ethical and scientific grounds. The need for voucher specimens providing scientific reproducibility is stressed. Zusammenfassung Die vorliegende Arbeit kritisiert den wachsenden Gebrauch der landessprachlichen Schmetter lingsnamen in der Lepidopterologie und verlangt die Verwendung von wissenschaftlichen Namen, weil es keine Alternative gibt. Die Notwendigkeit gelegentlicher Namensänderungen wird erläutert. Die Folterung von lebenden Schmetterlingen zwecks Untersuchung des Genitalapparates wird abgelehnt und dies ethisch und wissenschaftlich begründet. Die unverzichtbare Notwendigkeit der Belegexemplare wird verdeutlicht. Key words: Lepidoptera, butterflies, zoological nomenclature, scientific vs. vernacular names, reproducible scientific methods, voucher specimens. Introduction In his short paper on the butterflies of Armenia [BRERETON] (2013) makes reference to the following species: Azerbaijan Brown Argus, Gavamie Blue, Kurdish Copper, Mountain Alcon Blue (is there also Lowland Alcon Blue, are they two subspecies of the same species called Alcon Blue?), Persian Fritillary, Persian Skipper and Southern Swallowtail. I do not know and have never read or heard these names before. I have no idea whatsoever what they mean although I probably know most of these species by their scientific names. I wonder how many British readers understand all the above fantasy names or at least what they imagine when reading these names. I venture to suspect that for many readers they are something like exotic day active pretty unidentifiable flying objects (recommended acronym PUFO). Communicating information the addressees cannot understand makes no sense. Or am I mistaken in assuming that the purpose of the article mentioned above is to communicate information to readers? I assume that I know and can identify more butterfly species than an average reader of the journal Butterfly or an average member of the British Butterfly Conservation Society (BBCS). Yet I am lost reading the Society’s journal with English vernacular names. What can be the purpose of these fancy names? I suspect that the names serve as a cryptic advertising aid to commercial travel agencies selling all inclusive butterfly watching trips for “butterfly watchers” and laymen. The fancy nicknames cannot be related to any known butterfly species but can dazzle uninformed potential customers! The participating customer does not know what he/she is buying and paying for. Does this business strategy constitute an offence under the trade description act? Does this activity comply with the scientist’s social responsibility? Perhaps we had better used the commercial term “vendor”! Do the raids of snapshots greedy butterfly watchers pose a threat to valuable but vulnerable habitats? Having read [B RERETON’s] (2013) paper, I have written a critical letter to the unnamed editor of the Journal and sent it to the executives of the BBCS, usually referred to as “Butterfly Conservation”, the publisher of the journal. I have never received a reply from the editor. However, the BBCS Chief Executive Dr. M. Warren informed me later (pers. comm.), that there is no space for letters to the editor in their attractively illustrated journal. Nevertheless, my open letter has appeared in the Newsletter issued for the members of the European Interest Group (EIG) of the above Society (KUDRNA 2014). I do appreciate this very much. Curiously, in one of the following issues of the same journal, an article praising the English vernacular names and their more than 200 years long stable use has appeared (MARREN 2014). The author stated that “Today the Latin [sic] names of butterflies are rarely used except in scientific publications”. The Butterfly is surely not a scientific journal. Nonetheless, MARREN (2014) is totally wrong referring to Latin [sic] names and pointing out, that more names are in fact Greek. Scientific names in zoology are not Latin names, zoological nomenclature is Latinised. Summing up it appears that the primary purposes of the journal Butterfly are entertaining the BBCS members and butterfly watchers in general and promoting specialised guided butterfly watching package tours. A declaration that no part of the contents is intended to serve the purposes of research, science and zoological nomenclature would constitute a useful disclaimer under the Article 8.2 of the Code. It would be helpful if the publishers and editors of all publications similar to the Butterfly and subscribing to the aforementioned aims would include a similar disclaimer in every issue. Vernacular names - what for? Under certain circumstances vernacular names may be useful to denote a few species general public is likely to be aware of and could recognize in the field; they are also useful in publications written specifically for general public and for communication among laymen. FORSTER & WOHLFAHRT (1952-1955) in their praised standard work on the butterflies and larger moths of Central Europe used vernacular names for 56 of the 229 butterfly species of Central Europe, i.e. for 24.4 % of species they recognised. These species are usually common and widespread or otherwise attractive to laymen. HIGGINS & RILEY (1970) have apparently given in to the pressures of their commercially oriented publishers and fabricated an artificial vernacular name for every European butterfly species dealt with in their Field Guide. The purpose of the English vernacular names and the needless inclusion of “British” in the title of their book was increasing the sales and thus improving profits. So far as I can remember L.G. Higgins and N.D. Riley have always used scientific names in communication. In the latest better illustrated edition of the same field guide (TOLMAN & LEWINGTON 2008) numbers cross- referencing figures to scientific and vernacular names on the facing text page have disappeared and are replaced by English vernacular names. This can be well illustrated using page 191. Illustrations of Twin-Spotted-Fritillary, Marbled Fritillary and Lesser-Marbled-Fritillary are Brenthis hecate ([SCHIFFERMÜLLER], 1775) B. daphne (BERGSTRÄSSER, 1780) and B. ino (ROTTEMBURG, 1775). Curiously, the Spotted Fritillary and Lesser-Spotted-Fritillary (p. 207) have also two or more rows of spots and bear scientific names of Melitaea didyma (ESPER, [1779]) and M. trivia ([SCHIFFERMÜLLER], 1775) on the facing page. In German, the species are called Roter Scheckenfalter und Bräunlicher Scheckenfalter respectively; it shows that translating vernacular names makes no sense. A layman can hardly recognise one species from the other. It is most regrettable and disturbing, that English vernacular names of butterflies are nowadays spreading rapidly and have long found their way in bona fide scientific publications. This bad habit is threatening to spill over and infest all languages. Vernacular nicknames of butterflies cannot substitute scientific names. It may be believed that these nicknames are better understandable to the general public than scientific names. Nonetheless, it is pertinent to ask how many butterfly species live for instance in Europe compared with Great Britain and how many of them are known to and can be recognised by an uninformed layman. Only about every eighth European species occurs in Great Britain. Leaving aside up to four exceptions, all British species are widespread over most of Europe. Are the BBCS members to be ranked as uninformed laymen because they cannot learn or are unwilling to learn scientific names of less than 60 species? If the members of the BBCS in their vast majority are laymen - what are their observations and monitoring results worth? Should their ignorance or laziness be imposed on the whole continent of Europe? Should we learn English vernacular names for that reason? The use of vernacular names for butterflies in scientific and applied publications including biological conservation is a very bad and dangerous habit which has become a fashion. What is the background of this fashion? Is it poor general education of younger generations of academically educated researchers? Should Europe or the World be colonised by English vernacular names? There may be as many vernacular names for the same species as there are languages. Why should an Italian lepidopterist or a Spanish layman learn irrational English vernacular names if scientific Latinised names are much nearer to his mother tongue? Be it as may the plague of vernacular names threatens communication among students of butterflies (not only) in Europe. Vernacular names are arbitrary nicknames selected and